Concerning the last Rubric in the Communion Service.

The House of Bishops being informed of what they con-sider as a great misunderstanding, in various places, of the rubric at the end of the Communion Service, think it their duty to declare their sense of the same, and to communicate it to the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies.

In the Common Prayer Book of the Church of England, the words in the parenthesis are" if there be no communion." In the review of 1789, it was put-"if there be no sermon or communion"-and this has been interpreted to mean, that if there be a sermon, what has been called the ante-communion service is to be omitted-against this construction the bishops object as follows :—

1st. The construction rests on inference; deduced in contrariety to the positive direction-" Then shall follow the sermon." Had an exception been intended, it would doubtless have been expressed positively, as in other rubrics. Further, the rubric in question prescribes, that "when there is a communion, the minister shall return to the Lord's table;" which presumes him to have been there before, in the ante-communion service, unless in the permitted alternative of some other place.

2d. The argument on the other side proves too much, and therefore nothing. It is said of those who urge it, that they conceive themselves bound to use the whole service on a communion day; whereas it should be dispensed with, on the same principle on which it is supposed to be superseded by the sermon. On the other hand, if there being either a sermon, or the communion should be thought to warrant the omission; can it be, that the convention designed to leave in the book the ante-communion service, with all the collects, the gospels, and the epistles attached to them, to be little more than dead letter; never to be used, except on the few occasions when the said service is unconnected with either of the said provisions? For it is not required to be used either with the morning or with the evening prayer.

3d. There is a rubric prescribing the place in the service, at which notice shall be given of holy days, &c. Can it be supposed, that a provision of this sort was intended to be done away, not professedly, but indirectly? and that even there should be no provision for notifying the communion?

4th. It is understood, that the morning prayer, and the administration of the communion, were designed to be distinct services, to be used at different times of the day.

Probably, at the time of the reformation, the practice was generally conformable to the provision; and it is said to prevail at present in some places in England. Now, although there is probably no Church in the United States of which the same can be affirmed; yet, why raise a bar against so reasonable and so godly a practice? an effort for which, would reduce the whole to the sermon; except when the communion were to be administered; and then there would be the latter part of the service only.

5th. The construction casts a blemish on the observance of every festival of our Church. To speak in particular of Easter Sunday, Whitsunday, and Christmas day; can it be supposed, that the convention intended to abrogate the reading of the portions of scripture, the most pertinent of any in the Bible? or that the members of the body were so careless, as not to perceive the effect of the word introduced by them into the parenthesis? Neither of these was the case; although they had not the sagacity to foresce the use which would be made of their super-addition: a use, which may be applied hereafter to the abandoning of the observance of those festivals. For why should the Church retain them, after dispensing with whatever is attached to them in the respective services. The remark applies equally to the two days of fasting or abstinence-Good Friday and Ash Wednesday. It is here supposed, that on the former, there are the service and sermons in all our churches furnished with the ministry. But according to the opposite opinion, the sermon dispenses with the recital of the consummation of our Saviour's sufferings, and not only on Good Friday, but on every day of Passion week, if there be sermons. Could this have been intended?

6th. There is the magnitude of the change thus made in the liturgy, without the subjecting of the resulting consequences to the consideration of any General Convention : for this is here affirmed, without the apprehension of contradiction from any of the surviving members. The most obvious of the consequences, and such as could not have escaped the notice of the least attentive, were the dispensing with the reading of the Ten Commandments; the weekly return of which may well be thought to have a beneficial effect on morals; and the deranging of a selection of passages of scripture, always supposed to have been made with great judgment, and suited to the different seasons of the year. They were of like use in the Church before the prevalence of the corruptions of the Papacy; have with

stood, in some measure, its systematic hostility to a general knowledge of the scriptures; and, probably, have prevented a greater enormity of unevangelical error, than what we now find: for although the selections were in Latin, they were at least instructive to the many who understood the language, at a time when even among that description of people, the possession of a Bible was rare. To the present day, they are held in a high esteem, not only by our parent Church, but by the Lutheran Churches of Sweden, of Denmark, of sundry German principalities, and of this country. In some of the European states, the subject of the sermon is expected to be taken from the epistle, or from the gospel for the Sunday. There seems no reasonable objection, in any future review of the liturgy, to the making of some abbreviation, suited to the joining of services designed to be distinct but there may be doubted the expediency of making so great an inroad as that projected on the service now in question.

7th. The ante-communion service continued to be used as before, by the clergy who were present in the convention, in which it is now imagined to have been dispensed with. It is confidently believed, that there was not an exception of an individual; although, on the other side, the major number must be supposed to have been desirous of the innovation. In the interpretation of a law, immediate practice under it has been held to be a good expositor; especially when, as in the present case, a contrary sense had not been heard of for a long course of years.

The question may occur--Why did the convention introduce the words "sermon or," into the parenthesis? It was to reconcile the other rubric referred to, with frequent and allowable practice. The said rubric says-" then sha!! -follow the sermon." Perhaps, when the service was compiled there was a sermon on every saint's day, as well as on every principal festival. In modern usage it has been otherwise; which made it convenient to provide for the minister's proceeding to the Blessing. The parenthesis means, that although there be no sermon, or although there be no communion, the minister shall act as directed by the rubric.

The bishops therefore deem it their duty to express the decided opinion, that the rubrics of the Communion Service, as well as other general considerations, enjoin the use of that part which precedes the sermon, on all occasions of sermon or communion, as well as on those festivals and fasts when neither sermen nor communion occurs,

Having reviewed the above instrument, we are not only confirmed in our opinion therein expressed, but have an increased opinion of the evils, and of the dangers to which the contrary tends.

Of these, although not among the most material, yet worthy of notice, is its occasional standing in the way of a courteous interchange of ministerial services among the clergy. Those of the body, who conceive of themselves to be conscientiously bound by what they know to be the intendment of the rubric, cannot but refuse to officiate, with the omission of the ante-communion, however sanctioned by the custom of a particular place: and although the stated minister should condescend to tolerate a practice different from his own, yet the diversity cannot but have a disparaging tendency in the estimation of a congregation.

Secondly. The conscience of every bishop is occasionally implicated in the subject. A deacon offers for the priesthood, after administering habitually in violation of what the other believes to be the meaning of the rubric; while the one is to require, and the other is to promise conformity to it. On a presbyter's contemplating removal to another diocese, he finds it important to his character and to his prospects, that there should be certified conformity to the institutions of the Church; of the contrary to which the bishop has been credibly informed. It will be said, that in each of the supposed cases, the party may have conducted himself conscientiously, and agreeably to his own interpretation of the rubric. Let this be supposed the case; but let it also be granted, that the bishop, in taking his line of conduct, has also a conscience to be satisfied, and a right of interpretation to be sustained. At the same time let it be remembered, that of those who reject the constant use of the service in question, none plead conscientious scruples for their conduct.

If there be any case in which this matter, more than in any other, may press on the conscience of a bishop, it must be, when he is called to the duty of consecrating to the Episcopacy; and when the bishop elect, before a step is taken in the act of consecration, is to take on his lips the solemn form of words prepared for him; with the understanding in the minds of his consecrators, that he intends & deviation from the order of the Church, on so extensive a branch of her services as that in question.

Thirdly. The misinterpretation is an assumption of the whole legislative authority of the Church; leading, in its

consequences, to the setting aside of a very great proportion of the Book of Common Prayer. In our former communication we admitted, and now admit, that the favourers of the innovation are in the habit of using the ante-communion service on all occasions of the administration of the communion. We remarked, that their doing so was in contrariety to their construction; and that if others, under the shelter of it, should dismiss the ante-communion service whenever a sermon is to follow; and with it, the collects, the epistles, and the gospels; no fault, on the ground taken, can be charged. In the case supposed, why should there be retained such useless lumber in the liturgy? This was substantially set forth in our former communication; and is now repeated, for the purpose of exhibiting the matter in the light of the exercise of the whole legislative authority of the Church; and that, in the great extent to which it has been referred to.

To prepare for a further elucidation of the part of the canon in question, we here transcribe it-"Upon the Sundays and other holy days (if there be no sermon or communion) shall be said all that is appointed at the communion, unto the end of the gospel, concluding with the Blessing."

The question turns on the sense of the words "sermon or," and their dependence on the preceding preposition "if." The dictionaries explain this word, by the synonymous terms-" suppose that" and "allow that," and etymologists deduce it from the word " give;" which must be its sense in the English rubric; since otherwise whenever the communion is to be administered, the ante-communion service is to be dispensed with; an absurdity which none will ad

vocate.

The sense of this rubric may be perceived the more clearly, by remarking its connexion with that immediately before the sentences. The latter says-" then shall follow the sermon;" after which, according to the same rubric, the minister is to repair to the Lord's table, and to begin the offertory. The rubric now in question does not dispense with any thing before enjoined, but supposes cases of exception, in regard to what is to follow, saying-" if there be no sermon or communion," &c.

In consideration of the premises, the House of Bishops respectfully propose to the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies the following canon :